Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[laconicstudent]

Where did ya get that idea from?
Which reminds me of this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t5635831/
Would people leave the U.S. if Sharia Laws were enacted?

Luke 21:20 Whenever yet ye may be seeing Jerusalem[USA] being encompassed by armies[MUSLIMS], then be ye knowing! that nigh Her desolation.
[Zechariah 14:5]

From Ortho suggesting that we should follow the Qur'an and Shariah, since there is no way of determining what is Scripture from sola scriptura, and CJ going on to tell him that he's catching on.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT

In about 94 A.D. the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus put together his great work, Antiquities of the Jews, relying heavily on the Scriptures, which he drew from the Septuagint version. By this time the Apostles of Christ were writing - Gospels and Epistles. And we see that they were using the Septuagint almost exclusively - of the two hundred thirty-eight passages from the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament, only four are from the Hebrew and all the rest from the Septuagint. Even the Revelation of St. John, which does not quote the Old Testament directly, is filled with Septuagint words and phrases. Examining the Gospels and the Epistles carefully, we are met over and over by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without referring to their earlier use in the Septuagint.

...

From the Septuagint we also gained those books sometimes called "Deuterocanonical" or "Apocrypha" which are not in the Hebrew canon, but are so valuable to the Orthodox Church in her worship - including the beautiful and inspiring "Song of the Three Children," sung so often in our services. These useful and instructive books are interspersed throughout the Septuagint, and make it quite different from the Hebrew Old Testament. To those who object, saying, "But these books are not in the Hebrew canon," we must say in return, "We are not dealing with the Hebrew canon, but with the Bible of the Church, and these have been in our Bible from the very beginning. Our Old Testament is the Septuagint."

Old Testament and the Orthodox Church

Josephus makes the comment that the OT scripture was closed about the time of Ezra because there was no valid line of prophets. He says there are other books, but they're not accepted as scripture per se. (This is similar to what the church says, there are accepted books and books used like CLement, but not accepted as scripture.)

C175 Melito travels to Jerusalem? to compile a list of OT scripture. IIRC his list is identical to what P uses.

IOW, both of those sources agree on what was considered scripture at the time. Later, however, to bolster various traditions, the other non-scripture books were included. Later still, P tossed them and reverted to the original OT scripture.

That's my understanding. Then it also ties to what Jesus said about the prophets' blood of Abel to Zacharias (if we use the same order of OT books in use at the time). And it ties to the first and last apostles to die. Those are the 4 bookends. Two betweeen the OT and 2 between the NT. Those are the scripture handed down as divine.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I see, so the rule of scripture explicitly specifies "Christian" scriptures, then?

Yes, Christians embrace Christian Scripture.

IF you are practicing the Rule of Law in Arizona, you would be embracing Arizona law - quite obviously. As I noted in my post, clearly Luther and Calvin intend for the Christian Scriptures to be the norm, not the Bhagavad-Gita.





.

 

[laconicstudent]

Yes, Christians embrace Christian Scripture.

IF you are practicing the Rule of Law in Arizona, you would be embracing Arizona law - quite obviously. As I noted in my post, clearly Luther and Calvin intend for the Christian Scriptures to be the norm, not the Bhagavad-Gita.

And yet Islam purports itself to be a further revelation of Christian truths. How do you determine that they are not, and that Muhammad is a false prophet?

.

?

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, Christians embrace Christian Scripture.

IF you are practicing the Rule of Law in Arizona, you would be embracing Arizona law - quite obviously. As I noted in my post, clearly Luther and Calvin intend for the Christian Scriptures to be the norm, not the Bhagavad-Gita.

.

A step of faith at some point .

 

[Hentenza]

And yet Islam purports itself to be a further revelation of Christian truths. How do you determine that they are not, and that Muhammad is a false prophet?


?

If you have to ask then you need study.

Hint: Not by "T'radition.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes, Christians embrace Christian Scripture.

IF you are practicing the Rule of Law in Arizona, you would be embracing Arizona law - quite obviously. As I noted in my post, clearly Luther and Calvin intend for the Christian Scriptures to be the norm, not the Bhagavad-Gita.

Ok then, well if we have this rule of scripture which is to be used for deciding doctrine, it begs the question; what scripture does this rule consist of, and how do we decide?

 

[Montalban]

Yes, Christians embrace Christian Scripture.

Even the demons fear and tremble

IF you are practicing the Rule of Law in Arizona, you would be embracing Arizona law - quite obviously. As I noted in my post, clearly Luther and Calvin intend for the Christian Scriptures to be the norm, not the Bhagavad-Gita.
.

I addressed your Arizona analogy before. The reason why two people in Arizona obey the laws of Arizona are important.

However what you seem to be doing here though is bringing us down to a truism. If that's the summation of your beliefs then so be it.

You just take something as the norming, because you do.

 

[Montalban]

If you have to ask then you need study.

Not only have you not answered the question, you're appealing to circular logic too.

Pretty neat trick!

 

[Standing Up]

You think you're being silly but you MIGHT just be starting to understand...

Of course, when CHRISTIANS embrace Scripture, we DO mean the Christian Scriptures - that would be the object. But yes, as a PRACTICE, it is the EMBRACE of Scripture.-snip-
.

Which Christians? Which scripture?

 

[Montalban]

Okay, thank you, and if this thread was about arbitration, we could discuss if what he quoted supported his position - but that discussion would be derailing and is not permitted. Start a thread on arbitration if it matters to you...
.

You've confused two points.

I don't think the Bible supports Arianism. If I did, I'd take a serious look at Arianism.

And I'm sure you don't think it does either.

But that's not the point.

The point is StandingUp's novel theory of events based as it is on his say-so

The questions was can the Bible be used by Arians, yes it can. And it was.

Scripture gave them support.

What lead them to fail was that the church, not just relying on scripture understood it by the guidence of tradition.

Basically I met his challenge to show proofs.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Which Christians? Which scripture?

it does beg the question, doesn't it?

 

[Montalban]

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit to be http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xlii.html?highlight=bishop,deacon#highlightbishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops183183 Or, “overseers.” in righteousness, and their deacons184184 Or, “servants.” in faith.”185185 Isa. lx. 17, Sept.; but the text is here altered by Clement. The LXX. have “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness.”
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Nothing about firstfruits of priests.

Guide: We can also see Clement referring to scripture and tradition-tied-to apostles.

I am aware of your novel theory

 

[Hentenza]

Not only have you not answered the question, you're appealing to circular logic too.

Pretty neat trick!

Did you read my post this time?

 

[Montalban]

What gets me is the confusion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, because both
claim to have given us the Bible. Do the Eastern Orthodox also believe that their church is the one "true"
Church? I know the Catholic Church believes it and claims it. So, why all the confusion and division?

Already gone over this mistake countless times before.

Two competing claims does not mean that both are wrong, or that neither are right.

That we're two distinct churches has nothing to do with the internal divisions you have in your invisible church.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops183183 Or, “overseers.” in righteousness, and their deacons184184 Or, “servants.” in faith.”185185 Isa. lx. 17, Sept.; but the text is here altered by Clement. The LXX. have “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness.”
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Nothing about firstfruits of priests.

Guide: We can also see Clement referring to scripture and tradition-tied-to apostles.

Nor pastors, nor reverends, nor preacher, nor...etc.

 

[Hentenza]

I am aware of your novel theory

And we are aware of yours.

 

[Montalban]

Did you read my post this time?

I guess you don't have a response that actually addresses what I wrote?

Perhaps I should have gone over this in more detail because I didn't realise you wouldn't notice the circular logic.

That you and I agree that Moslems are wrong does not mean that they don't use scripture to believe it backs up their ideas.

Even the demons believe and tremble.

The Dalai Lama also 'believes' in the Bible too.

 

[Hentenza]

I guess you don't have a response that actually addresses what I wrote?

What did you write?

 

[Montalban]

What did you write?

Your one-liner came to fast - I added to it